Talk:One Piece novel A
Canon Apparently User:Klobis believe it to be non-canon, Since I don't remember Klobis being a vandelist, he might have a reason and i think this is the best place to talk about it. Rhavkin (talk) 12:58, September 4, 2017 (UTC) Biggest strike against it is that it wasn't written by Oda. It also falls under Novels, which the rules consider non-canon. Dragonus Nesha (talk) 15:47, September 4, 2017 (UTC) The novel was said to be "official" and was supervised by Oda, all the characters that appear were created by Oda and the Spade Pirates have appeared in the manga as well. So I would put this at same canonicity as Databook information, meaning it's canon unless contradicted in the manga/SBS. We talked about this on Discord too and the consensus was to consider it canon. 16:05, September 4, 2017 (UTC) I am with Kage. Until the manga or an SBS contradicts, we should consider it canon. Also, while other projects (Strong World, Film Z) were overseen by Oda, they did not receive the "official" confirmation. Plus, the OP Mag is official, which seems like a second layer of confirmation to me. 16:22, September 4, 2017 (UTC) It's canon, so I agree with Kage Meshack (talk) 18:02, September 4, 2017 (UTC) I consider it as canon as well since it was supervised by Oda 18:46, September 4, 2017 (UTC) Unless Klobis has a legit reason for it to be non-canon, it wouldn't matter since the story is canon, we're treating this as canon. Meshack (talk) 20:27, September 4, 2017 (UTC) Are you serious? I think it is groundless. *The novel was said to be "official", the OP Mag is official: Where is the source? What is the meaning? *The novel was supervised by Oda: Where is the source? And the non-canon films were supervised by Oda too. *all the characters that appear were created by Oda: There are many "Non-Canon Characters Designed by Oda". *the Spade Pirates have appeared in the manga as well: The Straw Hats appeared many non-canon stories. *the story is canon: The story was written by Hinata, not Oda. --Klobis (talk) 00:08, September 8, 2017 (UTC) So there is no source of Oda's "supervision" or the "official confirmation"? The novel must be non-canon. --Klobis (talk) 12:44, September 11, 2017 (UTC) Both statements were reported by sandman, a japanese One Piece fan who posts translations and summaries of a lot of information on forums and twitter. On the "official" statement, there's at least the term 公式小説 (apparently means "official novel"), which is used to describe the novel in several instances (one example). On Oda's supervision, Oda's editor talks about them consulting Oda many times in an interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1485&v=lC20LxA-f2I). Noland is also contacting sandman to ask about the sources and whether this is elaborated more somewhere. Regarding the arguments that "X is also Y but non-canon", the point was that the novel check rather than just one or two. 21:16, September 13, 2017 (UTC) What are all the boxes? Like the 3 films, even if there is Oda's participation, it is non canon. *The anime series is an official anime. The novel is official of course. But just like the anime, it is not Oda's work. *There were many elements in the anime, movies, games that the creators got Oda's permission. Like non canon Devil fruits. What I want to say is that "Oda approved the story" does not mean the story is canon. --Klobis (talk) 05:34, September 14, 2017 (UTC) If what you're saying is that unless Oda says "It's canon" nothing will convince you, I think that this is a rather pointless one-sided discussion. Rhavkin (talk) 06:20, September 14, 2017 (UTC) We've got one translator saying that it's official, but no source for that. Oda has approved various things like movies before without making them canon. All Klobis is saying is that we've got literally one source for most of this - and Noland is trying to contact that source to clarify the situation. So why not just wait until Noland hears back? 12:24, September 14, 2017 (UTC) Perhaps I misunderstood Klobis' comment. I read it as "Even if the source confirmed it's 'official' or 'Oda supervised' it still doesn't make it canon". So I have to ask: Klobis, what would convince you that this is canon? Otherwise we can just poll this now. Rhavkin (talk) 12:43, September 14, 2017 (UTC) If Oda makes the novel into a manga, or he states the events in the novel occurred in the manga as well. --Klobis (talk) 06:47, September 17, 2017 (UTC) So pretty much what I said before nova's comment. Rhavkin (talk) 07:03, September 17, 2017 (UTC) What's the difference between the novel and the previous anime, films, games? If you consider the novel canon, all anime, films, games are also canon. --Klobis (talk) 23:50, September 18, 2017 (UTC) Sorry for not replying sooner, I have been very busy with life. The sources that Sandman linked me to were actually the same ones as Kage's. But I want to make some of my own arguments. #. Klobis is the only person against considering this novel canon. That includes another translator with equal credibility (if not more considering the greater OP fan community), multiple admins, and veteran editors. Wiki rules are decisions by a simple majority, so the page and plot will be considered canon whether we convince Klobis or not. #. Klobis makes the argument that the novel is the same as anime, films and video games. First of all, not all of those things are considered "official." As for "official" sources, we consider databooks and the like as canon, but there is a hierarchy of sources. In my opinion, this novel falls in the same rank as databooks; if we see Ace's past in the manga, that will override what we see in this novel. #. Unlike some of the other controversial sources (i.e. Film Z, Strong World, and Film Gold), this novel fits within the timeline of the manga. You can't consider Film canon because it came out after the Straw Hats and Swirly Hats were split up. There is no possible way the group would be together for the events to occur. Novel A conflicts with nothing else in the current OP canon timeline. If something from the manga were to occur that conflicts with this, we would consider these events non-canon (granted, if it was from the manga, it would override anyway per my second argument). Either way, this is over. We can close it, because, like I stated above, everyone but Klobis agrees. Sorry, but rules are rules. For the time being, Novel A will be considered canon. 04:09, September 19, 2017 (UTC) *''In my opinion, this novel falls in the same rank as databooks'' Why is that? What evidence do you have? *Nami's past in Film Gold fits within the timeline of the manga, but it is non canon. Also Luffy's past with Naguri in the anime. Your comment is groundless. --Klobis (talk) 05:01, September 19, 2017 (UTC) Let's not compare the entire magazine. As for the fitting thing, the first movie fits the anime at that point and most filler arcs fit the anime at those times. The point is, as Noland said though misnumbered, two person say non canon with six saying canon. Wiki rules are Wiki rules. Rhavkin (talk) 16:05, September 19, 2017 (UTC) Klobis, why is only the manga considered canon? What if there was a movie made that was canon? Is it not canon because it's a movie? Does everything have to be drawn by Oda for it to be considered canon? Oda drew Special Episode Luff, so is it canon? We use SBS info and databooks as canon but Oda probably didn't put some stuff in the manga, so are databooks not canon? Meshack (talk) 12:55, September 20, 2017 (UTC) The discussion isn't about what is considered canon, but rather if this specifically is canon. Pointing out other ambiguous think we categorize as canon isn't gonna get us anywhere if Klobis still insists on "Oda confirmed it" only. Like said above, the majority in this discussion say canon so this should be enough unless someone has new, relevant arguments. Rhavkin (talk) 15:23, September 20, 2017 (UTC) Majority can do anything without proper evidence? The problem is there seems to be no evidence for your opinion. --Klobis (talk) 08:33, September 22, 2017 (UTC) Evidences to what? To whether or not consider "Oda supervised" as canon? It a question of wiki guidelines and was majority voted for "yes" in this discussion. Rhavkin (talk) 09:23, September 22, 2017 (UTC) After all, why is the novel canon? What makes the novel not non-canon? --Klobis (talk) 10:11, September 22, 2017 (UTC) Official source (OPM) and Oda approved. What else do you need? Rhavkin (talk) 10:29, September 22, 2017 (UTC) Majority agreement for considering canon. 22:51, September 30, 2017 (UTC) Name The title on the full novel is "Novel Ace". Should we changed the name? Rhavkin (talk) 15:54, March 5, 2018 (UTC) It's Novel A, but the A is read as "Ace". Look at the cover, the title has a red 'A' and then furigana giving it the reading Ēsu. 16:50, March 5, 2018 (UTC) I saw the red A, and the spade inside of it by-the-way, but I didn't knew which was the right way to read it. Thank you. Rhavkin (talk) 17:11, March 5, 2018 (UTC)